Boomer Wealth

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote: »

Who controls/manages this and is it open for anyone to purchase from it?
If its not open to all, then its controlled by the government and is effectively social housing imo.

public banks are generally run by trained professionals, similar to their private sector counterparts, but their high level employees, ceo's etc, are generally not paid as high wages. there are different types of public banks, eg. americas only public bank, the bank of north dakota, is effectively the states own central bank, supporting and backing the local smaller banks, i.e. the general population generally doesnt have direct access to them but do via their own commercial bank. nobody can purchase a german public bank, in fact, discussions of the act cannot even be discussed, of which, strict rules apply, its heavily protected under constitution

germany has a public infrastructure bank(kfw), fairly self-explanatory, and the general public generally doesnt have access, but germany also has a network of public commercial banks called sparkasse banks, all banks are heavily protected and regulated, public banks generally do not get involved in high risk activities such as derivatives trading etc, compared to their private sector counterparts.

naturally government has access to these banks, but strict rules and regulations apply to all examples given, id make sure its over seen by bodies such as the public accounts committee and theres no harm in contracting a private sector business to oversee everything, to make sure it doesnt get abused by governments, as the italian public banking system has. if used correctly, they can be very powerful, the bank of north dakota being virtually unaffected by the last crash, due to its conservative operations.

the critical element of creating money via a bank, is repaying the debt, including to your own public bank, a serious attempt must be made to do so, as the system as a whole has limited buffering capacity to protect itself from defaults and none performing loans, hence why i suggest, aiming loans towards the professional market, loaning towards social housing is much higher risk. if the bank collapses from defaults and none performing loans, it may lead to contagion within the internal financial system, and to the globally external markets. public banks mentioned have been operating for many decades, even centuries in some cases, with far less problems than their private sector counterparts.

Tony EH

Have to laugh at posters who inherited a situation or had money to invest in potential failures for over a decade talking down to people are merely interested in buying a 1 bed flat to live in and not have to spunk half or 3 1/4's of their wages on rent every month...and on top of that have the arrogance to speak of "the real world".

Fkn 'ell...

GreeBo

Lillyfae wrote: »

How's the inherited field getting on?

How's mixing up different posters getting on?:rolleyes:

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

*CAPITAL* city. There, I even put the world capital in capitals so you might notice it this time. If you think you should be able to afford something in the capital, what do you expect a similar property to go for in, lets say Laois?
Because, as even a 5 year old would know, no one is going to build a property for less than cost and so the price of said property in the capital is going to be significantly more than elsewhere in the country.

I would obviously expect a Dublin property to be more expensive than a property the same size in Laois. That doesn't mean that it should be completely unaffordable for someone working in Dublin.

De-mand.
Lots of other people want to live in that same part of the city and they have more money (in many cases combined) than your essential workers.
Where do you suggest these individuals live if its not in the properties they are currently in?

Do you think I don't know this?

This is where policies need to come in. There are plenty of cities all over the world where the governments have ensured that the entire property stock isn't snapped up for profit, leaving nowhere for normal people to live. There are various ways of doing this - rent caps, long-term secure tenancies, new affordable housing being built.

Why is this completely possible in other places but not in Ireland?

How much have they saved? I could save for years and have 5K, "saving for years" is as meaningless as "working very hard".

Say, whatever they have left after rent, essential costs and a small amount of disposable income.

So you are now ok with living in social housing in a high rise in Manchester?
But you are too good for Dolphins Barn? I somehow doubt that a high rise is where you see yourself tbh.

Do keep up. I don't think I'm too good for Dolphin's Barn. I said that an average worker can't afford to live there. That's the kind of place which a generation ago would have been a viable option for your average Joe to buy in his twenties and do up for a profit and move on. Now even something like that is a stretch for anyone on average money. I'm not sure how many times I need to say the same thing.

I would be delighted to live in a high rise if it had affordable, secure, long term rent or it was affordable for me to buy. I have no idea why you keep banging on about me wanting to live somewhere 'fancy' because I've certainly never said it. I currently live in a high rise ex-council flat in a really poor, rundown part of east London. I would buy the place in a heartbeat, except I can't afford to. I can't save up the deposit while I'm shelling out over a grand a month in rent to be here, and I earn far more than the average person around here.

Indeed, one of us truly doesn't get it. Also one of us is moaning about how unfair the world is. Wonder which is which.

It is unfair. Shutting out half the population of a city from having a secure home in it is grotesque. You'd be the first to complain if your bins didn't get collected or you had an accident and no ambulance arrived because all the essential workers had left.

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

public banks are generally run by trained professionals, similar to their private sector counterparts, but their high level employees, ceo's etc, are generally not paid as high wages. there are different types of public banks, eg. americas only public bank, the bank of north dakota, is effectively the states own central bank, supporting and backing the local smaller banks, i.e. the general population generally doesnt have direct access to them but do via their own commercial bank. nobody can purchase a german public bank, in fact, discussions of the act cannot even be discussed, of which, strict rules apply, its heavily protected under constitution

germany has a public infrastructure bank(kfw), fairly self-explanatory, and the general public generally doesnt have access, but germany also has a network of public commercial banks called sparkasse banks, all banks are heavily protected and regulated, public banks generally do not get involved in high risk activities such as derivatives trading etc, compared to their private sector counterparts.

naturally government has access to these banks, but strict rules and regulations apply to all examples given, id make sure its over seen by bodies such as the public accounts committee and theres no harm in contracting a private sector business to oversee everything, to make sure it doesnt get abused by governments, as the italian public banking system has. if used correctly, they can be very powerful, the bank of north dakota being virtually unaffected by the last crash, due to its conservative operations.

the critical element of creating money via a bank, is repaying the debt, including to your own public bank, a serious attempt must be made to do so, as the system as a whole has limited buffering capacity to protect itself from defaults and none performing loans, hence why i suggest, aiming loans towards the professional market, loaning towards social housing is much higher risk. if the bank collapses from defaults and none performing loans, it may lead to contagion within the internal financial system, and to the globally external markets. public banks mentioned have been operating for many decades, even centuries in some cases, with far less problems than their private sector counterparts.

I get all that, and indeed see the merit in it. But still, who is taking out the loans to build/buy the houses?

Unless the houses are cheaper, how is this bank helping people get mortgages? It wouldnt make sense for this bank to loan to people if they are not deemed a good risk?

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I would obviously expect a Dublin property to be more expensive than a property the same size in Laois. That doesn't mean that it should be completely unaffordable for someone working in Dublin.

Great, so if you get it, then please explain how the property in Dublin can be affordable and yet the property in Laois is both affordable and cost effective to build?
What does "working in Dublin" have to do with a property in Dublin being affordable? Again, please explain how this works in a free market?

Do you think I don't know this?


This is where policies need to come in. There are plenty of cities all over the world where the governments have ensured that the entire property stock isn't snapped up for profit, leaving nowhere for normal people to live. There are various ways of doing this - rent caps, long-term secure tenancies, new affordable housing being built.

Ah-ha policies.
We have rent caps.
We have pretty secure tenancies.
Affordable housing? you mean housing that is subsidised by the government , aka social housing?

Why is this completely possible in other places but not in Ireland?

Which countries that do it so better would you be happy to live in? Can you share some examples?

Say, whatever they have left after rent, essential costs and a small amount of disposable income.

Ok, lets say its €50 a month. Explain how, in the real world, that enables them to purchase a property in the capital?

Do keep up. I don't think I'm too good for Dolphin's Barn. I said that an average worker can't afford to live there. That's the kind of place which a generation ago would have been a viable option for your average Joe to buy in his twenties and do up for a profit and move on. Now even something like that is a stretch for anyone on average money. I'm not sure how many times I need to say the same thing.

But why, for the love of god *why* "should" someone earning the average, on their own, be able to live in the capital city?
For the umpteenth time, please explain how this works at a macro level, dont just keep telling us that it should work.

I would be delighted to live in a high rise if it had affordable, secure, long term rent or it was affordable for me to buy. I have no idea why you keep banging on about me wanting to live somewhere 'fancy' because I've certainly never said it. I currently live in a high rise ex-council flat in a really poor, rundown part of east London. I would buy the place in a heartbeat, except I can't afford to. I can't save up the deposit while I'm shelling out over a grand a month in rent to be here, and I earn far more than the average person around here.

So why are you taking up property that is for the average or below earner? Surely you are part of the problem?
Now do you see why I keep asking you *how* you expect this reverse ponzi scheme of yours to work?

You keep pushing the prices down in the capital and where do they end up in the less desirable parts of the country? Below cost? Well now who is going to build them exactly? No one, thats who!
Also, you ignore that if there are magically affordable houses in nice parts of Dublin city, the world and his wife are going to want to live there, how is that sustainable? You want to ignore the law of supply and demand at both ends.

Its just not the real world I'm afraid.

It is unfair. Shutting out half the population of a city from having a secure home in it is grotesque. You'd be the first to complain if your bins didn't get collected or you had an accident and no ambulance arrived because all the essential workers had left.

Can you show me your receipt for where you bought "Life: The Fair Package"?

"Half the population", "average household income"....hmm its almost like there is some correlation there!

My dear, there is no *possible* way I could be the first to complain, you have the monopoly on that skill.

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote:

I get all that, and indeed see the merit in it. But still, who is taking out the loans to build/buy the houses?

The state itself can take out the loans, or people that meet certain criteria, but have been unable to obtain credit via the private sector. The state could fund private sector construction firms to build various types of accommodation including housing and modern apartments, again, aimed at the professional market, those that find themselves stuck in the family home and the private rental sector, the accommodation built could remain in public ownership. the tenants could be offered long term tenancy, provided they meet certain criteria of course, and maintain their rental obligations, the state then uses this rent to pay back the debt.

GreeBo wrote:

Unless the houses are cheaper, how is this bank helping people get mortgages? It wouldnt make sense for this bank to loan to people if they are not deemed a good risk?

Baring in mind, a public bank doesn't necessarily need to make a profit, just as long as debt obligations are regularly serviced, and the fact theyre generally cheaper to run compared to their private sector counterparts

Yurt2

Many affordable housing models across multiple countries operate on a cost-recovery basis, i.e. cost neutral to the state, and very successfully at that. But to be honest, I'm not wasting my energy outlining them for someone like Greebo who will plug his ears and respond with cOmMunISm at every turn.

lainey_d_123

GreeBo wrote: »

Great, so if you get it, then please explain how the property in Dublin can be affordable and yet the property in Laois is both affordable and cost effective to build?
What does "working in Dublin" have to do with a property in Dublin being affordable? Again, please explain how this works in a free market?

Lots of people who live in Laois work in Laois and hence are making less money than they would in Dublin, or don't need to commute to Dublin every day. What do you do if you're a nurse working in Dublin doing long shifts and unsociable hours?

Ah-ha policies.
We have rent caps.
We have pretty secure tenancies.
Affordable housing? you mean housing that is subsidised by the government , aka social housing?

Secure tenancies? Are you having a laugh? Most contracts are for one year, and you can't paint, decorate or change anything about the property. How is that 'secure'? How is that a home?

Where are these rent caps? If there were rent caps, then one-bed apartments wouldn't cost well over 50% of the average earner's post-tax income.

No, affordable housing isn't social housing. I'm not here to educate you on such basic things. You've just shown how little you know on the topic, as if it weren't already obvious.

Which countries that do it so better would you be happy to live in? Can you share some examples?

They've already been mentioned on this thread. Brussels is one example of where rents can't exceed what equivalent mortgage payments would be, which stops people from being shafted out of ever being able to save a deposit.

Ok, lets say its €50 a month. Explain how, in the real world, that enables them to purchase a property in the capital?

An average earner can save much more than that. It still likely won't be enough to buy, and they may not qualify for the mortgage due to their salary, despite, as SusieBlue pointed out, the fact that they are probably paying the same or much more in rent every month.

But why, for the love of god *why* "should" someone earning the average, on their own, be able to live in the capital city?
For the umpteenth time, please explain how this works at a macro level, dont just keep telling us that it should work.

Why does it work in Brussels? Why does it work in most other European capitals?

So why are you taking up property that is for the average or below earner? Surely you are part of the problem?
Now do you see why I keep asking you *how* you expect this reverse ponzi scheme of yours to work?

Where else am I supposed to live? A cardboard box on the street? I'm renting what I can afford to rent given that I don't quality for social housing - why in God's name are you painting me as being part of the problem? What planet are you living on?

You keep pushing the prices down in the capital and where do they end up in the less desirable parts of the country? Below cost? Well now who is going to build them exactly? No one, thats who!
Also, you ignore that if there are magically affordable houses in nice parts of Dublin city, the world and his wife are going to want to live there, how is that sustainable? You want to ignore the law of supply and demand at both ends.

Its just not the real world I'm afraid.


It is unfair. Shutting out half the population of a city from having a secure home in it is grotesque. You'd be the first to complain if your bins didn't get collected or you had an accident and no ambulance arrived because all the essential workers had left.

[/QUOTE]

You're completely ignoring the points being made and are basically arguing with yourself now, in some sort of fantasy world.

Absolutely nobody is saying that rents in Dublin should be the same as outside, or that someone on an average wage should be able to live in the nicest parts of the city.

The biggest obstacle for people wanting to buy is not qualifying for a mortgage. Where's the logic in telling someone they can't afford to pay 800 euro a month in repayments when they've been paying back more than that in rent for the past decade?

One of the main reasons people want to buy in the first place is that renting is dire and insecure. Why is it so difficult to provide tenants with long leases, so they know they're secure in their home for the next 5 or 7 years, or longer? Has it occurred to you that maybe a lot of these people who you seem to think want to buy for the sake of it, would be happily renting for years if they weren't at the mercy of some landlord with almost no rights?

Wanderer78

Yurt! wrote:

Many affordable housing models across multiple countries operate on a cost-recovery basis, i.e. cost neutral to the state, and very successfully at that. But to be honest, I'm not wasting my energy outlining them for someone like Greebo who will plug his ears and respond with cOmMunISm at every turn.

I'm not so sure countries such as America and germany are all that communist, to be honest!

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The state itself can take out the loans, or people that meet certain criteria, but have been unable to obtain credit via the private sector. The state could fund private sector construction firms to build various types of accommodation including housing and modern apartments, again, aimed at the professional market, those that find themselves stuck in the family home and the private rental sector, the accommodation built could remain in public ownership. the tenants could be offered long term tenancy, provided they meet certain criteria of course, and maintain their rental obligations, the state then uses this rent to pay back the debt.



Baring in mind, a public bank doesn't necessarily need to make a profit, just as long as debt obligations are regularly serviced, and the fact theyre generally cheaper to run compared to their private sector counterparts

But isn't that just social housing?? (Not that I'm against it, I'm just struggling to see the difference)

I'm also not sure how long any bank will survive if its loaning money to people who are refused by other "private" banks. Sure there will be some who are fine, but the banks want to lend money, so if they are not giving you money I dont see why anyone else should.

salonfire

Wanderer78 wrote: »

and let me guess where theyre getting the 'money' for these properties.......

'credit'!

Will you quit rabbiting on about credit. Every second post from you on this thread is about too much credit availability.

Borrowers are limited to 3.5x their income as you well know.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote:

The state itself can take out the loans, or people that meet certain criteria, but have been unable to obtain credit via the private sector. The state could fund private sector construction firms to build various types of accommodation including housing and modern apartments, again, aimed at the professional market, those that find themselves stuck in the family home and the private rental sector, the accommodation built could remain in public ownership. the tenants could be offered long term tenancy, provided they meet certain criteria of course, and maintain their rental obligations, the state then uses this rent to pay back the debt.

GreeBo wrote:

But isn't that just social housing?? (Not that I'm against it, I'm just struggling to see the difference)

Yes and no, I'd call it public housing, again, aimed at young professionals, who are currently stuck in the family home or in the private rental sector

GreeBo wrote:

I'm also not sure how long any bank will survive if its loaning money to people who are refused by other "private" banks. Sure there will be some who are fine, but the banks want to lend money, so if they are not giving you money I dont see why anyone else should.

As above, I. E. The state can effectively take out the loans on behalf of the individuals

Wanderer78

salonfire wrote:

Will you quit rabbiting on about credit. Every second post from you on this thread is about too much credit availability.

I ll quit talking about credit, when people actually accept it's the main driver in the price of housing, hence why we experienced a 'credit crisis'!

Geuze

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I ll quit talking about credit, when people actually accept it's the main driver in the price of housing, hence why we experienced a 'credit crisis'!

That is partly true, but thanks to the CB's macroprudential rules/limits, excessive credit is no longer as big a cause.

Wanderer78

Geuze wrote:

That is partly true, but thanks to the CB's macroprudential rules/limits, excessive credit is no longer as big a cause.

House for sale, two couples bidding, who ll more than likely be living in it?

GreeBo

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Lots of people who live in Laois work in Laois and hence are making less money than they would in Dublin, or don't need to commute to Dublin every day. What do you do if you're a nurse working in Dublin doing long shifts and unsociable hours?

I have a job working as a waiter in Monaco, can you let them know that they need to drop their prices as I cant afford to live there?

i.e. Why are they living and working in Dublin if they cannot afford to live and work in Dublin?

Secure tenancies? Are you having a laugh? Most contracts are for one year, and you can't paint, decorate or change anything about the property. How is that 'secure'? How is that a home?

I wasnt aware painting or decorating added to ones security...it must be very thick paint.
Have you ever tried to remove a tenant in Ireland?

Where are these rent caps? If there were rent caps, then one-bed apartments wouldn't cost well over 50% of the average earner's post-tax income.

They are in the rent pressure zones...have you seriously not heard of rent caps in Ireland?

No, affordable housing isn't social housing. I'm not here to educate you on such basic things. You've just shown how little you know on the topic, as if it weren't already obvious.

Its housing provided by the state and costed below market value, call it what you want, its social housing by any other name. (Note that *I* have zero issue with social housing)

They've already been mentioned on this thread. Brussels is one example of where rents can't exceed what equivalent mortgage payments would be, which stops people from being shafted out of ever being able to save a deposit.

"can't"?

https://logement.brussels/louer/bail-dhabitation/loyer-de-reference wrote:

The reference rent is purely indicative. In the private market, the amount of the rent is always freely fixed by the lessor.

https://www.monardlaw.be/home/-/asset_publisher/3DwqCLLTN4YX/content/nieuwe-brusselse-huurwetgeving-schenkt-aandacht-aan-co-housing-en-studentenhuurovereenkomsten/maximized wrote:

The reference rental rates are non-binding.

An average earner can save much more than that. It still likely won't be enough to buy, and they may not qualify for the mortgage due to their salary, despite, as SusieBlue pointed out, the fact that they are probably paying the same or much more in rent every month.

Why does average get to live in the capital city? Why are they not living in the country wide average house?

Why does it work in Brussels? Why does it work in most other European capitals?

Why does "what" work in Brussels?

Where else am I supposed to live? A cardboard box on the street? I'm renting what I can afford to rent given that I don't quality for social housing - why in God's name are you painting me as being part of the problem? What planet are you living on?

Live somewhere where you dont earn "far more than the average person around here"?
You are pushing the average earners out of that area.

You're completely ignoring the points being made and are basically arguing with yourself now, in some sort of fantasy world.

Yeah, the fantasy world where life isn't fair. aka "reality".

Absolutely nobody is saying that rents in Dublin should be the same as outside, or that someone on an average wage should be able to live in the nicest parts of the city.

You are though.
The point you repeatedly miss is that if rent and property prices drop in Dublin, they *have* to drop elsewhere ina normal market. This would leave them below cost in many counties, so there is a lower limit to how much they can drop, ergo there is a lower limit to what they can cost in Dublin.

The biggest obstacle for people wanting to buy is not qualifying for a mortgage. Where's the logic in telling someone they can't afford to pay 800 euro a month in repayments when they've been paying back more than that in rent for the past decade?

Are you confusing me with your bank manager?

One of the main reasons people want to buy in the first place is that renting is dire and insecure. Why is it so difficult to provide tenants with long leases, so they know they're secure in their home for the next 5 or 7 years, or longer? Has it occurred to you that maybe a lot of these people who you seem to think want to buy for the sake of it, would be happily renting for years if they weren't at the mercy of some landlord with almost no rights?

"Almost no rights?" Again, have you ever tried to remove a tenant in Ireland?

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yes and no, I'd call it public housing, again, aimed at young professionals, who are currently stuck in the family home or in the private rental sector




As above, I. E. The state can effectively take out the loans on behalf of the individuals

Public = social in my head, I'm not attaching any stigma, merely that the state is intervening.

We had comparatively lots of this, but for some reason we decided to sell it below market rate to the people living there, so not only did we lose that rental income, we lost the property too.
Many of those people made a mint on the property.

For specific workers (such as nurses) I think we need to go back to the idea of employer provided housing, like Guinness did back in the day.
If you want people to work in your location and they cant afford to live there, then you need to provide housing that is specifically for them and at a rate they can afford.

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote: »

Public = social in my head, I'm not attaching any stigma, merely that the state is intervening.

We had comparatively lots of this, but for some reason we decided to sell it below market rate to the people living there, so not only did we lose that rental income, we lost the property too.
Many of those people made a mint on the property.

For specific workers (such as nurses) I think we need to go back to the idea of employer provided housing, like Guinness did back in the day.
If you want people to work in your location and they cant afford to live there, then you need to provide housing that is specifically for them and at a rate they can afford.

show me a country whereby its state has never 'intervened'!

OwlsZat

GreeBo wrote: »

For specific workers (such as nurses) I think we need to go back to the idea of employer provided housing, like Guinness did back in the day.
If you want people to work in your location and they cant afford to live there, then you need to provide housing that is specifically for them and at a rate they can afford.

We just need to reduce the cost of building to bring down the cost of housing. It's a very simple concept. Yet people will just bang on about inflationary measures until the cows come home.

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

show me a country whereby its state has never 'intervened'!

Again, I'm not saying its wrong and that the state shouldnt intervene, but I think trying to call it anything other than state/social housing pretends (not you specifically) that its somehow available for all and its just regular stock.

My point has been that if its just regular stock then it wont impact the market at all until supply outstrips demand.

GreeBo

OwlsZat wrote: »

We just need to reduce the cost of building to bring down the cost of housing. It's a very simple concept. Yet people will just bang on about inflationary measures until the cows come home.

By dropping building standards back to where there were in the 70's?
Cheap to build, expensive to run?

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote:

We had comparatively lots of this, but for some reason we decided to sell it below market rate to the people living there, so not only did we lose that rental income, we lost the property too. Many of those people made a mint on the property.

Its called neoliberalism, the market knows best, apparently (me bollcoks)

GreeBo wrote:

For specific workers (such as nurses) I think we need to go back to the idea of employer provided housing, like Guinness did back in the day. If you want people to work in your location and they cant afford to live there, then you need to provide housing that is specifically for them and at a rate they can afford.

So leaving it to the market, once again, I'm sure it ll work out this time!

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote:

Again, I'm not saying its wrong and that the state shouldnt intervene, but I think trying to call it anything other than state/social housing pretends (not you specifically) that its somehow available for all and its just regular stock.

I'd class social housing as housing for welfare class. I'd class public housing as housing for young working professionals, who are capable of paying market rate rents

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Its called neoliberalism, the market knows best, apparently (me bollcoks)




So leaving it to the market, once again, I'm sure it ll work out this time!

Well I dont think thats leaving it to the housing market, its leaving it to the job market which will have to happen if employers cant get workers. (Especially if the employer is a state employer, which brings us nicely back to state housing!)

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'd class social housing as housing for welfare class. I'd class public housing as housing for young working professionals, who are capable of paying market rate rents

Does that distinction really matter though?
I would see it all as a spectrum, depending on our circumstances you pay more or less. Having different categories just over complicates it and leaves people in potential limbo as they move "class".

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote:

Does that distinction really matter though? I would see it all as a spectrum, depending on our circumstances you pay more or less. Having different categories just over complicates it and leaves people in potential limbo as they move "class".

Fair point, but we have a serious problem brewing of younger professionals getting stuck in this market, something radically different has to change, in order to change it, virtually nothing has changed on this front, since the last crash

GreeBo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Fair point, but we have a serious problem brewing of younger professionals getting stuck in this market, something radically different has to change, in order to change it, virtually nothing has changed on this front, since the last crash

I'm hoping that the employer rent will be of a sufficiently low amount as to allow those workers to save for their own place in time.

Wanderer78

GreeBo wrote:

I'm hoping that the employer rent will be of a sufficiently low amount as to allow those workers to save for their own place in time.

Its a mess to be honest, and I think nobody really knows what to do next, but we better come up with ideas, and fast, as this is starting to have serious negative effects politically

OwlsZat

GreeBo wrote: »

By dropping building standards back to where there were in the 70's? Cheap to build, expensive to run?

No need to invent an answer. Personally, I'd reduce the Government take on housing, sitting at the ludicrous 33%. We seem to have done it when we needed other sectors to pick up ie., tourism post-2008 crash with great effect.

I'd also set up a task force aimed at reducing the cost of building materials. We are paying 2-3X what the UK pays.